Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dnautics 3719 days ago
The statement itself is pure technobabble.

"A regular computer bit is either a one or a zero, either on or off. A quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time and the uncertainty around quantum states allows us to encode more information into a much smaller computer."

To be sure, there are statements in there that are correct, but they don't connect up to a coherent description of the science behind QC. In short: I see words, I do not see understanding.

What is distressing or embarrassing though is the scientist who blatantly kowtows to Trudeau:

“I was very impressed he made an attempt,” said Dr. Lucien Hardy. “He got it spot on.”

No. He didn't get it "spot on". But I suppose if the prime minister is spearheading an initiative to fund you you'd better not embarrass him. But that sort of political play is not how you're supposed to do things in science.

1 comments

Isn't getting funding for science actually politics and not science? Using the funding is science, but getting the funding is politics, no?
You're conflating a strict definition of politics with "playing politics".
I am just suggesting that both politicians and scientists may need to do things that they may despise to get what they want.

Politicians may need to kiss babies to get elected and scientists may need to kiss politicians (metaphorically) to get funding :).

Isn't the ability to "play politics" a significant factor in rising up a hierarchy (scientific or otherwise)?

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

"I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen....

So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom."

After quitting traditional academic science, so far I have found that I haven't had to compromise my integrity in the pursuit of science. It hasn't been easy, but I am happy with where I am, so far.